Voskoboev, Nikolay

Abstract Background Cystinuria is an autosomal recessive disorder resulting in poor proximal tubule reabsorption of cystine in the nephron, increasing the risk of cystine stone formation. A fast, inexpensive assay to screen for urinary cystine is needed because cystine stones are difficult to noninvasively differentiate from more common calcium-containing ones. Tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) is sensitive and specific but is labor-intensive and costly. Alternatively, a colorimetric assay is fast and cost-effective; however, creatinine interference is an issue. Methods A published cyanide-nitroprusside colorimetric assay was modified for a high-throughput microplate format. Creatinine interference was reduced using 0.1 mol/L PBS and a standard reaction time of 60 s and was further corrected using a formula derived from the slope of multiple creatinine standard curves. Results The limit of blank was determined to be 2.6 mg/L, the limit of detection 11.9 mg/L, and the limit of quantitation 15.3 mg/L. The analytic measurement range was established as 15.3–100 mg/L cystine. Intraassay and interassay CV was calculated to be 9.6% and 8.0%, respectively, for a high-level cystine concentration (83.6 mg/L). Low-level cystine (36.4 mg/L) intraassay and interassay CV was determined to be 18.1% and 17.6%, respectively. Passing–Bablok regression analysis of colorimetric vs LC-MS/MS results revealed a slope of 1.10 and y intercept of −7.14 mg/L, with an overall bias of 2% by Bland–Altman plot analysis. Conclusions We analytically validated a rapid colorimetric assay suitable to quantify urinary cystine. The effect of thiol drugs on this assay remains to be determined.

Background and objectives eGFR equations have been evaluated in kidney transplant recipients with variable performance. We assessed the performance of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation and the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equations on the basis of creatinine, cystatin C, and both (eGFR creatinine-cystatin C) compared with measured GFR by iothalamate clearance and evaluated their non-GFR determinants and associations across 15 cardiovascular risk factors. Design, setting, participants, & measurements A cross-sectional cohort of 1139 kidney transplant recipients >1 year after transplant was analyzed. eGFR bias, precision, and accuracy (percentage of estimates within 30% of measured GFR) were assessed. Interaction of each cardiovascular risk factor with eGFR relative to measured GFR was determined. Results Median measured GFR was 55.0 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 . eGFR creatinine overestimated measured GFR by 3.1% (percentage of estimates within 30% of measured GFR of 80.4%), and eGFR Modification of Diet in Renal Disease underestimated measured GFR by 2.2% (percentage of estimates within 30% of measured GFR of 80.4%). eGFR cystatin C underestimated measured GFR by −13.7% (percentage of estimates within 30% of measured GFR of 77.1%), and eGFR creatinine-cystatin C underestimated measured GFR by −8.1% (percentage of estimates within 30% of measured GFR of 86.5%). Lower measured GFR associated with older age, women, obesity, longer time after transplant, lower HDL, lower hemoglobin, lower albumin, higher triglycerides, higher proteinuria, and an elevated cardiac troponin T level but did not associate with diabetes, smoking, cardiovascular events, pretransplant dialysis, or hemoglobin A1c. These risk factor associations differed for five risk factors with eGFR creatinine, six risk factors for eGFR Modification of Diet in Renal Disease, ten risk factors for eGFR cystatin C, and four risk factors for eGFR creatinine-cystatin C. Conclusions Thus, eGFR creatinine and eGFR creatinine-cystatin C are preferred over eGFR cystatin C in kidney transplant recipients because they are less biased, more accurate, and more consistently reflect the same risk factor associations seen with measured GFR.

Abstract BACKGROUND The Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guideline recommends use of a cystatin C–based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) to confirm creatinine-based eGFR between 45 and 59 mL · min−1 · (1.73 m2)−1. Prior studies have demonstrated that comorbidities such as solid-organ transplant strongly influence the relationship between measured GFR, creatinine, and cystatin C. Our objective was to evaluate the performance of cystatin C–based eGFR equations compared with creatinine-based eGFR and measured GFR across different clinical presentations. METHODS We compared the performance of the CKD-EPI 2009 creatinine-based estimated GFR equation (eGFRCr) and the newer CKD-EPI 2012 cystatin C–based equations (eGFRCys and eGFRCr-Cys) with measured GFR (iothalamate renal clearance) across defined patient populations. Patients (n = 1652) were categorized as transplant recipients (n = 568 kidney; n = 319 other organ), known chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients (n = 618), or potential kidney donors (n = 147). RESULTS eGFRCr-Cys showed the most consistent performance across different clinical populations. Among potential kidney donors without CKD [stage 2 or higher; eGFR >60 mL · min−1 · (1.73 m2)−1], eGFRCys and eGFRCr-Cys demonstrated significantly less bias than eGFRCr; however, all 3 equations substantially underestimated GFR when eGFR was <60 mL · min−1 · (1.73 m2)−1. Among transplant recipients with CKD stage 3B or greater [eGFR <45 mL · min−1 · (1.73 m2)−1], eGFRCys was significantly more biased than eGFRCr. No clear differences in eGFR bias between equations were observed among known CKD patients regardless of eGFR range or in any patient group with a GFR between 45 and 59 mL · min−1 · (1.73 m2)−1. CONCLUSIONS The performance of eGFR equations depends on patient characteristics that are readily apparent on presentation. Among the 3 CKD-EPI equations, eGFRCr-Cys performed most consistently across the studied patient populations.